Abstract for the 20th International Workshop on Water Waves & Floating Bodies, Longyearbyen, Spitsbergen, May 29-Jun
1, 2005.
Interference Resistance of Multi-Hulls per Thin-Ship Theory
Ronald W. Yeung
Mechanical Engineering & Ocean Engineering
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, California 94720-1740, USA.
E-mail: rwyeung@berkeley.edu
To a colleague and good friend, Nick Newman, in cele-
bration of his 70th birthday. A leader and staunch sup-
porter of marine hydrodynamics, Nick has expanded the
reach and influence of this field through his insights and
publications.
1 Introduction
Speed is an important consideration in all transportation
systems. It is the solution to excursion-time reduction.
However, this may be attained at the expense of increase
in power consumption and in exhaust pollution. Ship de-
signers are well aware of that conventional monohulls ex-
perience a rapid increase in wave drag at Froude num-
ber around 0.37, and the first hump of resistance at the
Froude number of 0.5 is difficult to overcome. Higher
speeds can be achieved by raising the hulls above water us-
ing foils or air cushions, or simpler still, by reconfiguring
the original hull into a formation of smaller hulls. Other
solutions involving a combination of air cushion, multi-
hulls, and foils have also been proposed.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, local and state authori-
ties have authorized a ten-year plan for a quadruple ex-
pansion of ferry routes, using new, high-speed ferries
with a design involving a combination of catamaran and
air-cushion. A fast tetra-hull has also been successfully
developed by Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale, CA, one that
has excellent motion characteristics in moderate seas. This
strong demand for fast multi-hulls has also led to a scrutiny
on environmental concerns, especially in connection with
operation in harbor and estuarine areas. Since large wave
drag is almost synonymous to large wake wash, the de-
sign of environmentally friendly hulls needs an effective
model for wave-resistance prediction.
2 Wave Resistance Theory
We will focus on the subject of wave resistance, which
is the inhibiting component of drag at high Froude num-
ber. In a revisit of the theory of Michell (1898), which had
provided the classical expression for the wave-making re-
sistance of a monohull based on the assumption that the
beam-to-length ratio is small, we were able to obtain a
generalized expression useful for analyzing the effects of
1
multi-hull interferences. An extensive collection of refer-
ences on ship resistance in various contexts can be found
in, for instance, Kostyukov (1958), Wehausen (1973), and
more recently, Gotman (2002), and Tuck et al. (2002).
Michells theory was considered inadequate in the 1970s
as few practical monohulls would meet the stringent thin-
ship assumption and most design conditions were aimed
at speed below the first hump. Figure 1, perhaps, summa-
rizes the difficulty of this situation at lower Froude number,
using a moderately thin Taylor Standard Series model as an
example. Yet, at the resistance hump, despite the apparent
importance of sinkage and trim (Yeung, 1972), Michells
theory as computed by Tuck et al. (1997) and our present
procedure (CMML, 2004) yields predictions that are rather
effective as a first-cut evaluation in ship design. Further-
more, for a given displacement, a multi-hull ship system
will invariably consist of thinner hulls, thus making them
more favorable to thin-ship modeling.
The presence of multi-hulls generates cross-flow effects.
When this so-called lifting or camber contribution are ne-
glected, based on either a slenderness assumption, or on
an appropriate camber reshaping of the member hulls, the
total resistance of the hull system can be represented sim-
ply by the interference of the wave systems in the far-field.
Among many works on this subject, one should recall Eg-
gers (1955) excellent treatise on two hulls in stagger for-
mation; this study includes the consideration of the effects
from finite depth and channel walls. The cross-flow ef-
0.0045
0.004
Wave-resistance coefficient, Cw
0.0035
0.003
0.0025
0.002
Gertler (1954), residuary
0.0015
Graff, et al. (1964), residuary
0.001
Tuck (1997), theory
0.0005 CMML (2004), theory
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Froude number
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Figure 1: Comparative plots of the wave-making resis-
tance coefficient for a Taylor Standard Series hull (Cp =
0.56, B/T = 3.0, C = 1.7 103 ) .
fects can be modeled by a dipole distribution (Scragg et al., Z st: stagger
sp: separation
1998), which requires the solution of an integral equation Y
in a way similar to the Kelvin-Neumann problem (Yang et z1 y1
x1
al., 2000). The computations would be quite demanding. st1
sp
When a multiple number of hulls are present, Michells X
st2
resistance is not simply the sum of the individual resis- z2
y2
x2
tances of each individual hull alone. The quadratic form
of the expression yields an extra term that accounts for the st
interaction between each pair of combination of the hulls.
Analysis showed that this interference resistance can be Figure 2: Frames of references for two hulls with separa-
expressed in a strikingly simple integral, mirroring some- tion and stagger.
what Michells original expression for a single hull. The
new expression (Yeung et al., 2004) contains the explicit The interference resistance Rw1* )2 sums the effect of
effects of stagger and separation and requires only the hull 2 on hull 1, (Rw12 ) and the the effect of hull 1 on
knowledge of the Kochin functions of each of the interact- hull 2 (Rw12 ). Clearly, these effects can be expressed as:
ing hulls. The expression together with Michells integral
Rw1*)2 = Rw12 + Rw12 =
can be computed concurrently using specialzed quadrature
methods. On a desk-top PC, thousands of combinations of U2
ZZ ZZ
geometric configurations and speeds would take only tens dx1 dz1 (f1 )x1 d2 d2 (f2 )2
S1 S2
of seconds, thus enabling a rapid evaluation in the param-
eter space and a quick search for an optimum in the early Gx2 (x1 2 ; sp; z1 , 2 )
stage of configuration design of multi-hulls. After provid-
U2
ZZ ZZ
ing a brief exposition of the analytical development, we + dx2 dz2 (f2 )x2 d1 d1 (f1 )1
present one case of the our validations against experimen- S2 S1
tal measurements, and two sample applications.
Gx1 (x2 1 ; sp; z2 , 1 ). (3)
3 Interference Resistance of a pair of hulls
where G is the Havelock source function given in We-
With reference to Fig. 2, we assume two hulls to be moving
hausen & Laitone (1962). As expected, the inner double
at constant speed U in the xdirection, each defined by the
integral represents the linearized dynamic pressure driven
hull function yj = fj (x, z) in its own body coordinates. If
by a source distribution of the neighboring hull, while the
these hulls were individually alone, Michells well-known
outer double integral integrates this pressure using the lon-
result gives the following expression:
Z gitudinal component of the hull in question. After substi-
d 2 tuting the expressions of the Green functions in each of the
Rwj = U 2 | Aj () | , (j = 1, 2) (1)
1 2 1
4 two terms, making appropriate trigonometric expansions,
and changing variables to relate the coordinate systems,
where Aj (), the wavemaking-amplitude (or Kochin)
one finds that the odd terms of Gx1 and Gx2 cancel out in
function of the j-th hull, and is given by:
ZZ the sum of Rw12 and Rw12 (Yeung et al., 2004). Sim-
2i 2 4 2 ilar internal force cancellation was observed by Eggers
Aj () = k0 dxdz fj (x, z) ek0 z eik0 x . (2)
Sj (1955). In the end, we arrive at a rather simple expression
involving the Kochin functions of the interacting hulls:
with k0 = g/U 2 . Here, may be written as sec , where
denotes the orientation of the crest line of the Kelvin wave Z
2 d p
system relative to the x-axis (see Newman, 1977). The Rw1*
)2 = 2 U cos [k0 sp 2 1]
4 2 1
classical result was given in terms of hull slope fjx . An 1
integration by part in x was conducted to obtain the above

<(A1 A2 ) cos [k0 st ] =(A1 A2 ) sin [k0 st ] , (4)
after assuming the hulls to have closed ends.
Of interest is Eq. (1) states that the wave resistance is
proportional to the beam squared, with all other variables with < and = denoting real and imaginary parts, respec-
kept constant. Thus, if we start with a baseline hull of tively. Eq. (4) shows explicitly how the stagger st
beam B, and split it into two hulls identical and affine (st2 st1 ) and separation sp of the two hulls can influence
to the initial one, the two separate hulls will have beam the total wave resistance. The more negative the interfer-
B 0 (= B/2), and Rw1 + Rw2 would only be one-half of ence is, the less wave drag the pair of hulls has. Rw1*)2 is

the baseline-hull resistance, yet having the same displace- independent of the sign of st if the two hulls are identical.
ment. This argument is definitely true if the two hulls are If A1 6= A2 , Rw1* )2 does depend on the sign of st.

infinitely far apart (not a practical situation). In reality, the The above analysis can be quickly generalized to a fam-
resistance of the two hulls with finite separation and stag- ily of n hulls. The total wave resistance exerted on the
ger is given by: whole system is given by:
n n1 n
RwT = Rw1 + Rw2 + Rw1*
)2
X X X
RwT = Rwi + Rwi*
)j . (5)
Rw1 + Rw2 + Rw12 + Rw12 i=1 i=1 j=i+1

2
 0.006
Lin and Day (1974), residuary
Lin and Day (1974), source-dipole distribution

Wave-resistance coefficient, Cw
0.005
CMML (2004), theory

0.004 0
z 2
4
6

0.003 40
30
20
10
0
0.002 x 10
20
30
40 4
4 2 0 2

0.001 y

0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

Strut Fn, U/SQRT(g*Ls)

Figure 3: Comparison of the wave-resistance coefficients of the MODCAT-IV catamaran (Lin & Day, 1974) and per-
spective view of the demi-hull.

This involves the interference resistance Rwi* )j of any st = 0, but sp and Fn taken as variables. Fig. 4 is a contour
pair of hulls i and j. The indices (1, 2) in (4) need only projection of the 3-D surface function R1* )2 /R0 , labeled
be replaced by (i, j), with st = (stj sti ) and sp is the as Rinterf /R0 . Here R0 is the resistance of a mono series
lateral separation between hull i and j. 60 hull of the same displacement. The complexity of the
interference is evident. However, one can pick out the ex-
istence of an optimal sp of 0.226L and Fn=0.33, which is
4 Validations and Applications
an achievable value in practice.
Computations of the integrals given by Eqs. (1), (2), and A tri-hull resistance code, TRIRES, was also devel-
(4) were made by first developing a spline-surface of the oped to design/configure a combination of three hulls, with
hulls. Then for a given , the Kochin functions were stagger, separation, speed, and volumetric distribution, as
computed using Gaussian quadrature and Filon quadrature. possible variables. To illustrate the application of one of
The final integration in or uses either regular or adap- its several options for a tri-hull problem, we consider the
tive numerical integration as appropriate. The fast but ac- problem of three hulls with the outriggers being identical,
curate computations allow a full definition of the resistance but geometrically scaled from the center hull. A Wigley
function in the parametric space quickly. hull form is chosen and assumed to operate at a design
For a di-hull example, we compare the computations speed of Ud = 12m/s. The separation (sp) between the
from our CATRES code for the Lin & Day (1974) twin- center hull (Hull 1) and each of the outriggers (Hull 2 and
hull SWATH hull. Figure 3 shows the frame lines of the 3) is assumed fixed at 9m.
model and the present results, compared with both exper- For comparison, a baseline Wigley hull (L =
iments and those of Lin (1974), the latter using a dipole 36m, B = 3.6m and T = 2.25m) is taken as reference.
distribution to account for cross-flow effects on the strut. The effects of stagger st and the volumetric distribution
The humps and hollows occur at the same locations, but among the three hulls on the total resistance of the system
there are some discrepancies regarding the values of the are investigated, with the constraint that the total volume
resistance around Froude number of 0.325. is fixed at o = 64.8m3 . The distribution of the volume
1
among Hull 1 and the Outriggers is governed by the rela-
CMML, UC Berkeley, 2004

0.9 0.4
tion: 1 = (1 2p)o and 2,3 = po , with p in [0., 0.5].
0.8
This formulation allows one to recover a monohull when
0.7
0.3
p = 0, a catamaran when p = 0.5. The stagger between
0.6
0.2
Hull 1 and the Outriggers is negative (0 to -60 m). The
surface plot of the wave resistance in Fig. 5 reveals a min-
sp/L

0.5
0.1

0.4
imum point at (st = 29.25m and p = 0.2789), with
0.3
0 RwT = 20, 200N . A perspectivce veiw of the optimum
0.1
configuration of the trimaran is shown in Fig. 6.
0.2

0.1
Figure 7 compares the perfomance of this optimum tri-
0.2
maran with that of the baseline monohull, in term of wave
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fn
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
resistance alone and total resistance, the latter includes
the frictional resistance based on the ITTC friction line.
Figure 4: Contour plot of Rinterf /R0 for two Series-60 hulls in The wave resistance is reduced by 60.7% for the trimaran.
parallel configuration as function of F n and sp/L. Even though the increase in the friction contribution (be-
cause of larger wetted surfaces) diminishes this favorable
Next, we show a combination of two Series 60 (demi- redcution, the trimarans total resistance is still 25% less
)hulls (Model 4210W) in a catamaran formation, with than that of the monohull at the design speed Ud = 12m/s.

3
 The trimaran will have to overcome a higher resistance at a
speed of about 7.8m/s in order to reach the design speed.
More discussions and results of this web-based analysis
x 10
4
tool will be further explained in the Workshop.
9

8
Acknowledgement
Total wave resistance [N]

6 Several CMML members have contributed extensively

5 to the study reported here: G. Poupard, J. O. Toil-
4 liez, Alexia Aubault, and R. K.-M. Seah. Thanks also
3 go to FAU Consortium coordinator M. Dhanak, (FAU
2 No. CRD66), with efforts conducted under ONR Grant
0.4 N00014-03-1-0211.
0.3 0
10
0.2 20
0.1 30
scaling factor, p 40
0 50
60
stagger [m]
References
[1] Eggers, K., Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen
Gesellschaft, No. 49, 1955, pp. 516539.
Figure 5: Total wave resistance of three Wigley hulls with stag-
[2] Gotman, A. Sh., Oceanic Engineering International, Vol.
ger st and scaling factor p as variables (at Ud = 12 m/s, sp =
6, No. 2, 2002, pp. 74115.
9m).
[3] Kostyukov, A. A., Theory of Ship Waves and Wave Resis-
tance, Effective Commun. Inc., Iowa City, IO, 1959.
[4] Lin, W.C., Proc. 10th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics,
MIT, Cambridge, MA, June 1974, pp. 493511.
[5] Lin, W.C. and Day, W.G. Jr., AIAA Paper No. 74-325,
0
AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conf., San Diego,
40
California, Feb. 25-27, 1974.
30 CM
ML,
UC
Berk
eley
2
[6] Michell, J.H., Philosophical Magazine - Ser.5, Vol. 45,
20 004

10
1898, pp. 106123.
0
10
[7] Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics, MIT Press, Cam-
0
10 bridge, MA, 1977.
10
[8] Poupard, G. and Toilliez, J.O., Report No. CMML2004-1,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cal-
Figure 6: Perspective view of the optimum trimaran at a design ifornia at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, 2004.
speed of 12 m/s. [9] Scragg, C. A., Reed, A. M., Wyatt, D.C., and Ratcliffe, T.
J., SNAME Transactions, Vol. 106, 1998, pp. 443482.
[10] Tuck, E.O., Report T8701 Department of Applied Mathe-
matics, The University of Adelaide, Australia, 1997.
[11] Tuck, E.O., Scullen, D.C., and Lazauskas, L., Proc. 24th
140000
Wave resistance of monohull
Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Fukuoka, Japan, July
Total resistance of monohull, with ITTC friction line
120000
2002.
Wave resistance of optimum trimaran
[12] Wehausen, J.V. and Laitone, E.V., Handbuch der Physik,
Total resistance of optimum trimaran, with ITTC friction line
100000 Vol. IX, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1960, pp. 483490
[13] Wehausen, J.V., Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. XIII,
Resistance [N]

80000
New York Academic Press, 1973, pp. 131174.
60000
[14] Yang, C., Noblesse, F., and Hendrix, D., Proc. 23rd Symp.
on Naval Hydrodynamics, Val de Reuil, France, September
40000 17-22, 2000.
[15] Yeung, R.W., Journal of Ship Research, Vol. 16, No. 1,
20000
1972, pp. 4759.
0
[16] Yeung, R.W., Poupard, G., and Toilliez, J.O. SNAME Trans-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 actions, Vol. 102, 2004
Speed [m/s]

Figure 7: Wave resistance and total resistance (using the ITTC

(1957) friction line) of two configurations (monohull and tri-
maran) having the same total displaced volume = 64.8 m3 .